Policy —

California moves to outlaw online “e-personation”

Hoping to administer a powerful sockdolager to online fraudsters, the California legislature passed a bill earlier this month that makes it illegal to impersonate someone else online.

Its backer, state senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), says that the old laws against fraud or defamation just aren't cutting it anymore. "In the age of the Internet, pretending to be someone else is as easy as using their name to create a new e-mail account. When that is done to cause harm, folks need a law on the books they can turn to," he said. "New laws are needed to crack down on this form of harassment."

California already has such a law, but it dates to 1872 and only covers faking someone's signature. The new bill extends the principle to Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail, and it makes "e-personation" (yes, we're groaning, too) a misdemeanor punishable by up to $1,000 in fines and a year in jail.

The bill's text is brief. In an effort to carve out freedom of speech exceptions, the bill outlaws only "credible" impersonations, and the impersonation must be done "for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person." Fake Steve Jobs should be OK, but "harm" is a fairly nebulous standard.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation sees obvious potential for abuse here as corporations target those who might seek to parody their actions or impersonate them as a political gesture—in other words, the Yes Men. The Men (and presumably, some women) have pulled off a couple of terrific events in recent years, including one last year where they impersonated the US Chamber of Commerce, rented the National Press Club, and issued a major announcement reversing their current global warming policies.

The hoax fooled a number of real reporters, garnered tons of attention, and ended in bizarre fashion when an actual Chamber of Commerce employee showed up and tried to shut down the whole proceeding. The Chamber eventually sued the group.

Could similar online events be illegal under the new bill? Should they be? "Temporarily 'impersonating' corporations and public officials has become an important and powerful form of political activism, especially online," says EFF today. "Unfortunately, the targets of the criticism, like the Chamber, have responded with improper legal threats and lawsuits. It would be a shame if Senator Simitian’s bill added another tool to their anti-speech arsenal."

As for the issue of "credible" interpretations, EFF says "that argument misses the point—identity correction depends on initial credibility, just as it also depends on prompt exposure."

The bill awaits Governor Schwarzenegger's signature. EFF encourages him not to sign.

A State in America cannot make a law that moves across borders. What if someone in China impersonates a person who lives in California? What then? Or Germany? Or Somalia? This law is only effective in the greater 50. Elsewhere it is more than useless. If it was a Federal law then it would have some kind of traction.

dlux wrote:

So will this also apply to spoofed From: addresses in spam?

Well, they Judges just told us that P2P users can be "innocent infringes so.... O.o

Would this cover people making fake names on forms to conceal their identity? Whistleblowers come to mind that this law could target, or maybe I am mistaken for who would be included in the breaking of this law.

A State in America cannot make a law that moves across borders. What if someone in China impersonates a person who lives in California? What then? Or Germany? Or Somalia? This law is only effective in the greater 50. Elsewhere it is more than useless. If it was a Federal law then it would have some kind of traction.

dlux wrote:

So will this also apply to spoofed From: addresses in spam?

Well, they Judges just told us that P2P users can be "innocent infringes so.... O.o

This law is only effective in California. Impersonate people as much as you want elsewhere.

Fraud committed for profit or with the intent to harm should never be legal. Fake Steve Jobs has no worries - nothing about using a name with FAKE in it would imply an intent to pose as the real Steve Jobs.

Why should any person be able to misrepresent themselves for profit or with intent to harm another? Think of this as electronic forgery, no less criminal in nature, if not currently in law, than old school paper forgery.

Slooooowly, the nations will remediate the absence of laws on this new communication channel. IRL there are laws and regulations which have been a part of or an instrument of civilization. Many people are currently harmed in one way or another by the absence of "real" laws adapted to the "virtual" world and with actual consequences IRL. There's more than big content at stake on Internet.

I'm not advocating for or against NN nor am I proposing some universal solution across borders and continents, I'm just saying some laws are necessary and inevitable. No one will cure gambling overnight IRL or elsewhere but that does not mean it should be legalized.

A State in America cannot make a law that moves across borders. What if someone in China impersonates a person who lives in California? What then? Or Germany? Or Somalia? This law is only effective in the greater 50. Elsewhere it is more than useless. If it was a Federal law then it would have some kind of traction.

dlux wrote:

So will this also apply to spoofed From: addresses in spam?

Well, they Judges just told us that P2P users can be "innocent infringes so.... O.o

This law is only effective in California. Impersonate people as much as you want elsewhere.

Would this cover people making fake names on forms to conceal their identity? Whistleblowers come to mind that this law could target, or maybe I am mistaken for who would be included in the breaking of this law.

bs0d wrote:

i think its stupid, sites like facebook should have no right to demand your real personal information and the best way to keep things private is to lie

big tuna wrote:

Does this mean I'll have to change my name because not actually Jim halpert? But what about my post count?!

To these three, and the horde of other comments sure to follow in the same vein, I'll point out that the law seems to only apply to impersonation of another actual person. So simply lying about your identity (by making up a name or details) or impersonating fictional characters would not be covered.

Between that, and the credibility requirement, I'm not getting how this is a terrible thing.

The Yes Men are a perfect example of WHY something like this would be important and why the EFF is wrong (on this issue)

Fraud is not parody. Parody is not fraud. I am a *huge* supporter of EFF and have given them tons of money, but on this notion of fraud and parody being equal? I cannot disagree more.

My proof: a scraped/modified page at http://electronicfrontierfoundation.com where there is nothing but praise for the Google/Verizon net neutrality agreement, support of the Patriot Act, and loathing of privacy rights. How would EFF react?

They would be trapped in a circular argument they could never get out of. They would be fighting against the defrauder by denouncing their website at the same time they would be fighting for their right to make such a website.

If someone is doing a parody, not attempting to defraud the public - then fine. I am in 100% agreement you should be able to mock anyone you want.

But even though you can't impersonate a real person\corporation doesn't mean you cant' impersonate a person or corporation that doesn't exist or am i reading this wrong? I don't see the foul in not being able to pretend you are me. Now can the state bring charges or the person you are impersonating have to bring charges?

Meg Whitman is going to be a crappy governor.Shes someone with alot of money that is out of touch with your everyday working American. By that I mean people that make 0 to 30k a year. How can she relate? seriously? Shes a millionare/billionare. Just like the people that run this country. They forgot what its like to live paycheck to paycheck. Its EASY for them to sit on their throne and stipulate new laws and regulations. The United States is a Plutocracy. And California is leading the way.

Meg Whitman is going to be a crappy governor.Shes someone with alot of money that is out of touch with your everyday working American. By that I mean people that make 0 to 30k a year. How can she relate? seriously? Shes a millionare/billionare. Just like the people that run this country. They forgot what its like to live paycheck to paycheck. Its EASY for them to sit on their throne and stipulate new laws and regulations. The United States is a Plutocracy. And California is leading the way.

The question you have to ask yourself when voting for someone is why do they want to get elected? For her it is obvious that she wants the power to put more money in her and her buddies coffers by pushing for legislation and altering regulations. She's scary. Carly Fiorina is even scarier. I'm all for women in government but these two have no business being in control of anything.

Meg Whitman is going to be a crappy governor.Shes someone with alot of money that is out of touch with your everyday working American. By that I mean people that make 0 to 30k a year. How can she relate? seriously? Shes a millionare/billionare. Just like the people that run this country. They forgot what its like to live paycheck to paycheck. Its EASY for them to sit on their throne and stipulate new laws and regulations. The United States is a Plutocracy. And California is leading the way.

The question you have to ask yourself when voting for someone is why do they want to get elected? For her it is obvious that she wants the power to put more money in her and her buddies coffers by pushing for legislation and altering regulations. She's scary. Carly Fiorina is even scarier. I'm all for women in government but these two have no business being in control of anything.

Yep .. thats the thing ----> WHY does she want to be elected so bad? (aside from a power trip)Thats whats scary.

Meg Whitman is going to be a crappy governor.Shes someone with alot of money that is out of touch with your everyday working American. By that I mean people that make 0 to 30k a year. How can she relate? seriously? Shes a millionare/billionare. Just like the people that run this country. They forgot what its like to live paycheck to paycheck. Its EASY for them to sit on their throne and stipulate new laws and regulations. The United States is a Plutocracy. And California is leading the way.

Meg Whitman is the reason EBay is the reason it is the way it is now. It used to be a free market where people could do business with other people and EBay would just be the middle man. Now EBay is more like Big Brother looking over ever ones shoulder. Ugh, it is horrible. EBay rapes on the way in, rapes on the way out and then their evil step child Pay Pal starts the raping of the wallet all over again. Thanks Meg, we see you know how to steal from the little people. Now I know how you will run California. Buy stealing from the little people WHOLE SALE.

I have no faith whatsoever in this law and fully expect it to be abused. After getting arrested for public intoxication while sober, denied an actual BAC test countless times, put in jail for 3 hours, and then held for another hour after my bail was already paid and my release documentation completed because I made the corrupt police chief mad and he determined I "was still drunk and a danger to myself and others", I'm all for a little anarchy when its needed.

Devin wrote:

I'd support it. Maybe this will cause all those moms that bully their kid's peers to think twice.

The EFF's only concern is that it may make groups like the Yes Men be more careful about the stunts they pull? Good.

You have a fucked up view of the world around you. Considering how you are more worried about bullying mom's than the impediment of political criticism, I hope you have no say whatsoever in the state of affairs of anything outside of your own delusional mind.

I have no faith whatsoever in this law and fully expect it to be abused. After getting arrested for public intoxication while sober, denied an actual BAC test countless times, put in jail for 3 hours, and then held for another hour after my bail was already paid and my release documentation completed because I made the corrupt police chief mad and he determined I "was still drunk and a danger to myself and others", I'm all for a little anarchy when its needed.

Devin wrote:

I'd support it. Maybe this will cause all those moms that bully their kid's peers to think twice.

The EFF's only concern is that it may make groups like the Yes Men be more careful about the stunts they pull? Good.

You have a fucked up view of the world around you. Considering how you are more worried about bullying mom's than the impediment of political criticism, I hope you have no say whatsoever in the state of affairs of anything outside of your own delusional mind.

Parody and Satire are very valid forms of criticisim, however when you cross the line into convincing others that you are who you're impersonating it becomes fraud. The Yes Men by convincing a large group of people - even some from the media - crossed that line. Had those convinced by their escapade spread the word there would have been misinformation out there concerning a legitimate groups viewpoint.

Parody and Satire are very valid forms of criticisim, however when you cross the line into convincing others that you are who you're impersonating it becomes fraud. The Yes Men by convincing a large group of people - even some from the media - crossed that line. Had those convinced by their escapade spread the word there would have been misinformation out there concerning a legitimate groups viewpoint.

Or it just shows how pathetic the MSM is these days. If some simple fact checking would clear things up then the problem is with the reporters. Or are we saying that only mediocre to okay satire and parody are okay? I guess something like the War of the Worlds radio broadcast should be illegal too? Sounds like the bill does not do enough to protect our first amendment rights.